Thursday, April 27, 2006
The Double Standards of America
Why is it ok for America, the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons against another, to (a) still possess nuclear weapons and (b) decide which countries are "allowed" to possess nuclear weapons?
Why can India and North Korea hold nuclear weapons while Iraq and Iran cannot?
Why can India and North Korea hold nuclear weapons while Iraq and Iran cannot?
Comments:
Why ill-informed, silly and slightly offensive?
I was aware of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) when I made the post, however, I think it is out-dated and essentially invalid.
How would ratifying the NPT ever be in the interest of countries like India or North Korea that perhaps feel threatened by the security council nations or simply do not wish to tip the balance of world power even more in their favour than it already is?
And I know that America doesn't "decide" who gets nuclear weapons in the "pick and choose" sense. What I meant was more along the lines of what 'not the scarlet pimpernel' hinted at: that it is essentially "the only country with enough political control, stability and resources at home combined with strategic reach to overtly make such threats" - which effectively means that it can basically "decide" who can or cannot possess nuclear weapons.
I just don't understand why it is perfectly ok for some countries to possess weapons of mass destruction but totally not for others. This is a blatant double standard is it not?
"With great power comes great responsibility."
I expect (as in what I think should happen) the US to behave responsibly but expect (as in what I think will happen because of what has happened in the past) that it will not.
Hunnicut...agree with you that the wording of the initial post implied that the US is the "boss" with respect to who is allowed nuclear weapons. As per the Treaty, as you effectively pointed out, this is not the case. However, my interpretation of current situations leads me to believe that there is justification in thinking that the US as an undue influence on which countries are afforded the right to have nuclear capabilities.
India is one example. They have weapons, are not a signatory to the treaty, yet the US just signed an agreement to transfer nuclear technologies.
And:
By the wording of the NNPT, Iran is definitely in violation of the agreement by not allowing
inspectors to investigate...in which case there is no problem with countries of the world threatening Iran via sanctions, military action, etc. However, the NNPT does state that signatories are allowed peaceful nuclear capabilities...if specific conditions are met. (click on the link in Hunnicuts first post to read the specifics) Thus, if Iran has, in fact, allowed inspectors full access, there is no reason, applying the treaty in a black/white view of the world, to not allow them to continue on the path toward nuclear capability.
There is a tendency, unfortunately, for the US to exert an inordinate amount of influence using political, economic and military means to tip the balance in favor of American and American Allied interests.(india) For example, existing NATO treaties allow for US nuclear capabilities to be used by members of NATO. So, Belgian pilots are trained in the use and application of nuclear weapons when in fact they do not possess any of their own. Thus, countries are able to circumvent the existing rules to effectively become nuclear states. Or Israel, a long-standing ally of the US is considered by everyone to possess nuclear weapons in clear violation of the treaty...even developing them after the treaty was implemented, yet no sanctions, etc are forthcoming. This is where the double standard may exist.
Some articles:
Iran, International Law and Nuclear Disarmament
The Law and The Bomb
The Non-Proliferation Treaty is failing: What now?
The Legal Framework for Non-Use and Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
The Nuclear Weapons Debate
Post a Comment
Why ill-informed, silly and slightly offensive?
I was aware of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) when I made the post, however, I think it is out-dated and essentially invalid.
How would ratifying the NPT ever be in the interest of countries like India or North Korea that perhaps feel threatened by the security council nations or simply do not wish to tip the balance of world power even more in their favour than it already is?
And I know that America doesn't "decide" who gets nuclear weapons in the "pick and choose" sense. What I meant was more along the lines of what 'not the scarlet pimpernel' hinted at: that it is essentially "the only country with enough political control, stability and resources at home combined with strategic reach to overtly make such threats" - which effectively means that it can basically "decide" who can or cannot possess nuclear weapons.
I just don't understand why it is perfectly ok for some countries to possess weapons of mass destruction but totally not for others. This is a blatant double standard is it not?
"With great power comes great responsibility."
I expect (as in what I think should happen) the US to behave responsibly but expect (as in what I think will happen because of what has happened in the past) that it will not.
Hunnicut...agree with you that the wording of the initial post implied that the US is the "boss" with respect to who is allowed nuclear weapons. As per the Treaty, as you effectively pointed out, this is not the case. However, my interpretation of current situations leads me to believe that there is justification in thinking that the US as an undue influence on which countries are afforded the right to have nuclear capabilities.
India is one example. They have weapons, are not a signatory to the treaty, yet the US just signed an agreement to transfer nuclear technologies.
And:
By the wording of the NNPT, Iran is definitely in violation of the agreement by not allowing
inspectors to investigate...in which case there is no problem with countries of the world threatening Iran via sanctions, military action, etc. However, the NNPT does state that signatories are allowed peaceful nuclear capabilities...if specific conditions are met. (click on the link in Hunnicuts first post to read the specifics) Thus, if Iran has, in fact, allowed inspectors full access, there is no reason, applying the treaty in a black/white view of the world, to not allow them to continue on the path toward nuclear capability.
There is a tendency, unfortunately, for the US to exert an inordinate amount of influence using political, economic and military means to tip the balance in favor of American and American Allied interests.(india) For example, existing NATO treaties allow for US nuclear capabilities to be used by members of NATO. So, Belgian pilots are trained in the use and application of nuclear weapons when in fact they do not possess any of their own. Thus, countries are able to circumvent the existing rules to effectively become nuclear states. Or Israel, a long-standing ally of the US is considered by everyone to possess nuclear weapons in clear violation of the treaty...even developing them after the treaty was implemented, yet no sanctions, etc are forthcoming. This is where the double standard may exist.
Some articles:
Iran, International Law and Nuclear Disarmament
The Law and The Bomb
The Non-Proliferation Treaty is failing: What now?
The Legal Framework for Non-Use and Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
The Nuclear Weapons Debate
